Now that more info is available about
- Thread starter notFromhere
- Start date
I just know that as a man, when I think of self defense against a woman, my first go to is..... biting right? His fiancee was found with bite marks and other injuries, its pretty obvious he beat her lol, no man is going to bite a woman in a self defense situation like his.
It is very common for the victim in a domestic violence case (usually the woman) to retract her story later, before trial. The reasons why are obvious - people involved in domestic violence often stay together and don’t want the case to continue. This leaves the prosecutor in a bind sometimes. But not if there are witnesses or injuries, or statements to the police that can be used at trial.
The poster who claimed that excited utterances cannot be used at trial doesn’t know what he’s talking about - they absolutely can. The idea is that if a victim blurts something out while excited and in the moment such as “he hit me” there’s a good chance it’s true. So you would have the cop testifying what the victim told him and the jury would have to decide if that is more believable than her current testimony.
Anyway, it is obvious to anyone with a brain why any university would have to strongly consider firing a coach accused of beating up their fiancée. Unfortunately many on here are brain dead.
The poster who claimed that excited utterances cannot be used at trial doesn’t know what he’s talking about - they absolutely can. The idea is that if a victim blurts something out while excited and in the moment such as “he hit me” there’s a good chance it’s true. So you would have the cop testifying what the victim told him and the jury would have to decide if that is more believable than her current testimony.
Anyway, it is obvious to anyone with a brain why any university would have to strongly consider firing a coach accused of beating up their fiancée. Unfortunately many on here are brain dead.
You have obviously never worked with abused women, especially those that are well taken care of by men with money. They call the police when they think they are about to be killed, and then recant when they realize they are about to lose financing.
Beard should've made better choices. He put Texas in an awkward position and while we don't know what's going to happen with him next, most universities aren't going to stand by a coach accused of getting into a physical altercation with his partner. A DUI where no one is hurt is embarrassing and damaging, but your public career will survive that. When you're having a WrestleMania match with your significant other and cops are called, all bets are off.
And some of you take these things from 0-100. No one here is saying BELIEVE ALL WOMEN and inevitably someone will bring up Duke Lacrosse, as if that fked situation should apply to all man/woman situations. Anyway, I can see a scenario where KP is fired after next season and after a couple coaches say no, Louisville bites the bullet and asks Beard.
And some of you take these things from 0-100. No one here is saying BELIEVE ALL WOMEN and inevitably someone will bring up Duke Lacrosse, as if that fked situation should apply to all man/woman situations. Anyway, I can see a scenario where KP is fired after next season and after a couple coaches say no, Louisville bites the bullet and asks Beard.
Lots of Lefties on this thread who completely fail to understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty ". Disgusting. Once upon a time, Leftists liked that concept, which is the numerous uno concept in our criminal justice system, but, then again, once upon a time they were anti war and pro free speech.
It is also very common for people to completely fabricate allegations. I'll bet you weren't aware of that, counselor. Have you ever been in a courthouse?
Hmm. You’ve hung around a lot of guys in your day that have hit women, likely yourself as well. Methinks thou doth protest too much. Abused women recant their stories all the time, only to end up in the same situation over and over.
Innocent until proven guilty is a Constitutional thing that affects your rights to not go to jail. It does not affect your right to keep a job. If you think he did nothing wrong, tell me how many times your wife or girlfriend has called 911 because of you?
And, if you were asking me, I've been in just about every courthouse in this Commonwealth. Wrong fight to pick there.
Considering that I directly quoted another post, I obviously wasn't responding to you.
Fuzz where you been bro? Ever settle up on that bet?
You were talking to me. I used to be a public defender. And I’ve been a civil trial lawyer for more than 20 years. What if Beard has been accused of murdering his fiancée? Should UT keep him employed as basketball coach until he’s convicted on the basis of “innocent until proven guilty”?
A lot of Righties on this thread and many others that don’t understand that Constitutional rights only limit what the government can do to you, for what you can and cannot be sent to jail. Right wingers as a rule support right-to-work and it’s sibling, at-will employment laws that allow employers to fire workers for any reason. In general they support employers rights over workers rights. Yet here you are arguing that U of Texas shouldn’t be able to fire Beard? Weird.
From his contract; “Any conduct (a) that the University administration reasonably determines is clearly unbecoming to a Head Coach and reflects poorly on the University, the Program, or The University of Texas System; or (b) resulting in a criminal charge being brought against Head Coach involving a felony, or any crime involving theft, dishonesty, or moral turpitude,”
Sure, plenty do and plenty also get fired. Pitino kept his job at UL, Petrino was fired from Arkansas…
I think there was some sort of altercation over something that seems like it should have been unimportant. I'd say things got heated and both sides likely did things they now regret.
Listen man, the trial or case could take over a year to complete. Are they supposed to have an interim coach for a season plus before deciding whether the PR is bad enough or not?
Fuzz. although it is not easy to envision a scenario in which the Constitution will save Beard's job, I can assure you that the scope of the Constitution goes far beyond criminal law, and Constitutional rights do as well. I would normally be surprised that such a know-it-all as yourself doesn't know that- but you don't even know that you're supposed to pay a losing bet.
Seeing as you don't read so well, I'll help you out a bit. Not a single ONE of those men hit any women in those or other incidents, so it's more likely you are projecting. You reading into it that they did so tells more about you than about them.
The only thing you said right (so it is therefore likely you copied it from somewhere) is highlighted, I also fify. Methinks you're the idiot you plainly present yourself to be, since I didn't protest anything.
I know women that have found themselves in, chosen, and been the abusers in abusive relationships. I didnt give examples of those because there are plenty to be seen. As sick as it is, there are also consenting, abusive relationships. No one should assume anything.
I won't assume anything in this case either but will wait until all the facts are made clear. I have no problem with UofT doing what they feel is in their best interests, regardless of the eventual outcome. It's their program and the legalities are between the dept and the coach.
But ... It is the fool that believes that men are the only abusers or that seek out these bad relationships.
I won't assume anything in this case either but will wait until all the facts are made clear. I have no problem with UofT doing what they feel is in their best interests, regardless of the eventual outcome. It's their program and the legalities are between the dept and the coach.
But ... It is the fool that believes that men are the only abusers or that seek out these bad relationships.
Dude, posturing for your buddies might make you feel better but it exposes you as a ********. To think and act like you know more about law than lawyers is the height of arrogance and stupidity.
Were you with your buddies when these incidents happened or are you just going with what they told you? I’m guessing you’re just taking their word. Maybe something happened, maybe it didn’t but if you weren’t there then you really don’t know. There are loads and loads of data to back up his assertions. You can live in your world of denial but everyone else doesn’t.
1. I really hope you read better for the sake of your clients. I didn't say they can't be used at trial. I said specifically that they weren't automatically assumed to be factual, especially when they were contradicted at a later time by the same, sober person.
2. No. That is an assumption, not a logical conclusion. There is A CHANCE it is true, but that chance is neither more likely ("good" in your words) or less likely to be true depending on the circumstances.
3. Except in this case where the one who reportedly made the call testified they never asked her questions or took her statement at the time of the arrest. I wonder how it would help a case to ask the arresting officer to testify and they state under oath that they never bothered to take a statement or ask her anything at all while making the arrest.
4. I'm sure you would ask the jury to decide "which is more believable," but their job is to decide which is true, not which is more believable, given the facts and testimony presented. If the only witness says that what they said when drunk or hysterical didn't happen that way when sober, and there are no other witnesses or evidence that contradict that sober testimony, you'd have to have a significant bias to say the sober witness is lying.
Whether it makes sense or not, if it's in his contract, I could see why the university would cut their losses. It hurts their reputation in today's world to wait until things work through the legal system (as you can see by this thread alone, there are a lot of people that have already decided he's guilty and a serial abuser, and she's innocent, was truthful at first, and a liar now).
People like to rush to judgments. They like to form opinions not only before all is made known, but also in spite of what is made known. That's what fuels social media and the media right now. Remember the Heard vs Depp case? All kinds of people had already decided what happened before anything came out at trial.
This world is fkd up
Assumptions and posting from emotion doesn't make you look smart. No one is posturing except the person misreading and mischaracterizing posts, and you refusing to address the errors in yours. It may make you feel better to avoid reading for content and comprehension when it goes against your gross assumptions, but it doesn't change the fact that assuming someone is guilty because others were guilty is as ignorant of a take as you can get.
Even if 10M of 10.1M men accused were found guilty, it's completely fkd up to assume that 1 man is guilty without witnesses corroborating the abuse. When that same witness won't corroborate their previous testimony, the case shouldn't be allowed to continue without significant corroborating evidence to throw out the victim's sober statement against herself. If that evidence IS documented and timely, the abuser should be found guilty. If the victim says it was consensual, it's fkd up, but how do you deny that as his or her right?
Logic is not posturing. It's not emotional. It's not biased. It's just freaking logic.
With regard to the examples I listed, I knew all of the witnesses and hung out with them so that's how I found out about the stories and verified the ones I didn't witness personally. One was confirmed to me directly by the girl that had the weapon, after she had received her 2nd DUI and got counseling.
Denial is in every mirror you peer into. You're the one that thinks every man is guilty, and that no women are abusive. Being that willingly ignorant, the only way you will understand is when it happens to you. When it does, remember this conversation.
I won't be engaging with you again on this subject.
You gave 3 examples of the system working like it should and people not being arrested or convicted to prove that men are always arrested and convicted no matter what happens?
The system works like it should with no thanks to those who presume guilt courtesy of media articles.
That changes my opinion of him as a person and coaching candidate, but even if I hated him, it doesn't have anything to do with not having all of the facts, or declaring him guilty based solely on press releases.
No one is whitewashing anyone. Don't go emo on this.
Shew, Girthang is either related to Chris Beard or he's been triggered by this incident in some way. Dude's put in about 32 paragraphs trying to make us feel sorry for the former UT coach.
Buddy, you write War and Peace length posts. Kinda hypocritical of you
interested in your thoughts on DeShaun Watson. A grand jury didn't indict him, but he was suspended for 11 games and fined $5,000,000 by the NFL.
Do you think Texas only looked into a single police report regarding this incident and the decision to fire Beard? My bet is that he and his fiance are complete hot heads who drink and fight all the time. For any Braves fan out there this is like the Ozuna situation where he and his wife have had multiple battery situations against each other. And they probably knew there were other incidents and didn't want to take the risk of this getting worse - especially for the sport of basketball.